Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners clash over Open Meetings Act and whether consultant rankings must be publicly deliberated
Summary
Several commissioners argued that the board must publicly deliberate consultant rankings to comply with recent Michigan case law; others said candidate confidentiality and existing legal review justify the current process.
A central theme of the meeting was whether the board's process for narrowing applicants — and the role of the search consultant Double Hall — required public deliberation under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.
A speaker identified as Sylvia cited recent court decisions, urging the board to publicly discuss how Double Hall produced rankings. "The committee's decision is an exercise of governmental authority which effectuates public policy... This did not happen," Sylvia said, referencing the Pine Brook Warren ruling and related appellate decisions. She argued the board must demonstrate independent consideration of consultant recommendations in public.
Chair John Tippels and other commissioners pushed back, noting that many applicants requested confidentiality and that legal counsel reviewed the process. "Candidates by law have a right to ask for confidentiality in a closed session to review applications," Tippels said. He said the citizens committee would provide opinions to the board but would not narrow candidates or make recommendations that would replace board deliberation.
Commissioners discussed the legal standard and the practical tradeoffs between recruiting competitive candidates and public transparency. The board debated whether advisory groups or private staff actions could be interpreted as decisionmaking under the OMA; no binding legal determination was reached during the meeting.
